The University of Bristol is standing behind Cheshire. Way, way, behind him. While whistling nonchalantly and glancing about with apparent interest in something in the middle distance.
That’s my favored hypothesis, as I’ve said before. It’s an idiosyncratic production by the equivalent of an “outsider artist” today, in an invented language and alphabet that was only intelligible to the person who wrote it. It wasn’t meant to be meaningful to anyone else.
Basically, his “methodology” is
-
Take one of the illustrations and decide what it depicts, which is usually highly ambiguous. For example, he makes much of an illustration that he alleges is a volcano, which others have identified as showing water imagery.
-
Transliterate the Voynichese words according to the unverified correspondence he claims with Roman letters.
-
Search through all existing Romance languages to identify corresponding words that might possibly be related to the supposed illustration. If he can’t find one, then pick a word from any other European or Middle Eastern Language like Polish or Persian, and say that this indicates how far the influence of his “proto-Romance” had spread. (Seriously. I am not making this up.)
-
String it all together into some nonsensical mish-mash and claim it has something to do with the illustration. As some of the critics have noted, this is all perfectly circular. He figures out what the words mean based on the illustration, and then claims that the fact that the resulting “translation” refers to the illustration as confirming it.
This is one of the more ludicrous attempts at interpretation I have seen. The major mystery to me is how this got by even the most rudimentary peer-review. (Although some of the blog posts say it didn’t undergo any true peer review.)
How many by a real PhD and published in a peer reviewed journal?
Right. Like I said, “proto-Romance” is Latin, or a form of it. But to the extent it may have existed at all, it was about a thousand years before the Voynich MS was written. Cheshire says it’s unknown and left no trace even though it survived for 1000 years and was spoken over thousands of miles because it wasn’t written - except in a single manuscript written in a non-Roman script (unlike virtually every other Romance language) on a tiny island just off the coast of Italy. Sounds plausible to me!
A real Ph.D.! Fancy that! How amazing! Surely it must be right!:dubious: (As a real Ph.D. I know how flaky some of them can be.)
If you check the links, many people are questioning how such an utter piece of tripe got past even rudimentary peer review, and the University of Bristol has pulled its press release while it is investigating.
Yes, actually it has everything to do with it. If his method is bogus (which it is), then his translations will be bogus (which they are).
Still supporting him, even after his university has put out a press release distancing themselves from his claims?
Merged with existing thread.
I’ve discovered an earlier pdf all about the “volcano.” I don’t know which about this guy is more oversized–his imagination or his ego.
I am saying his claims differ quite a bit from crazy people on youtube. Peer-reviewed means something.
No, but a real PhD publishing in a peer-reviewed journal has more veracity than some nut doing a youtube. And no doubt, PhDs can be flaky.
ISTM that if he’d REALLY deciphered the thing, his announcement would have been written (and illuminated) in Voynichese.
Or maybe Klingon.
So, you are a ornithologist, yes? Do you think you are qualified to speak on languages?
The guy whose article you guys think “took down” Cheshire is a avowed Voynich “expert” who wrote *his own book *where he “solved” the manuscript (which you say no one can do, so…) who has a MBA! :eek: and writes computer games for a living. He is by no means a linguistics expert.
Now, who do you say is the better expert? A guy who writes computer games, has a MBA and wrote a book on Voynich that was heralded by the Fortean Times :eek:, in other words, pseudoscientific hokum. This guy is completely full of shit and honestly, Darren Garrison should be ashamed for citing this pseudoscience nutjob as a real cite. Why not cite von Däniken or Graham Hancock? :rolleyes:They at least are best selling purveyors of hokum and pseudoscience.
Or a guy with a PhD who published in a peer reviewed journal. Who could be wrong. But at least he isnt backed by the Fortean times.
OK, maybe Cheshire* is *wrong, sure. But citing Nick Pelling, pseudoscientist and purveyor of his own hokum “solve” of the manuscript aint cutting it.
Okay, I just looked up the Journal of Romance Studies. I’m not really too sure what the hell the focus is (see, for example, this article about a Chinese CGI character in a SF horror movie) but it seems to be a journal less in the sense of “rigorous academic publication” and more in the sense of “a publication that you read once then use to line a bird cage.”
If you say so, but I am sure others strongly disagree. However it is cited almost 2000 times on Google Scholar.
Rates a little higher than your boy Pelling and the Fortean Times, however, eh?
Are you gonna cite von Däniken or Graham Hancock next?
Better than a crazy person on Youtube? This is the bar that needs to be cleared for you to give it credence?
Depending on the journal, peer reviewed can mean something, or it can mean jack. I have my suspicions what it means in this case.
Colibri, are there not some respected ornithology journals out there that the layman would find boring and even obtuse?
Here’s one: http://ardea.nou.nu/
I am sure that this- to a layman- would make great bird cage lining. Rather poetic also.
The problem isn’t with it being “boring and obtuse” it is with it seeming to be utterly random articles about pretty much anything. For instance, the current issue has a paper looking at photos of the children of some rich Mexican guy and making statements like “A close analysis of photographs shows how gendered representations of girls demonstrate ambivalent aspects of neoliberal subjectivity and question neoliberal definitions of choice and success.” It also has an article about gendering Chinese characters in Itallian novels. Actually look at the contents of the latest issue. This isn’t a dry, rigorous academic journal on lingustics and history, it is a fish wrapper.